04 April 2011

Supervisor Lamphier Revealed

George Rebane

Nevada County’s recently elected Supervisor Terry Lamphier published an extremely revealing, and therefore, welcome column last Saturday in the 2apr11 Union. In that short piece (‘Re: It’s Time to Get Serious’, below in blue italics) he did an admirable job of telling readers his perceptions of our economy and understanding of American governance.

Many would dismiss his words as just the disjointed ramblings of a lightly learned liberal. Here we choose not to do that; instead we take Mr Lamphier at his considered word, and inform ourselves of this elected representative’s world view and beliefs. These tenets are important for us to understand, since he and his intellectual peers may soon dominate county government, and take us all to where their lights will show the way. Let’s look at this new shining.

I agree with Sen. Doug LaMalfa's observation that “Americans are a can-do people.” Unfortunately, I disagree with him on just about everything else, everything else being rationalizations as to why, implied in essence, the business world is the superior role model for how we should live our lives. He is forwarding the conservative message that ‘society, and its representative, our government, should be subservient to economics and the private sector.'

Right off the bat, Mr Lamphier posits that government should not be subservient to the principles of economics and the private sector - the fundamental credo of a socialist cum whatever stronger form of collectivism you care to insert.

We are no longer talking about representative government — where we all have a say in what happens — when regular folks' voices are drowned out by a Wall Street government populated by those who perpetuate the migration of wealth into an ever smaller pool while systematically dismantling the very agency they were elected to work for and with.

So governments that are subservient to principles of economics and the private sector do not belong to the class of representative forms of governance. Our Founders would find this conclusion most remarkable and counter to their intended legacy to us. Difficult to tell here how Mr Lamphier connects these two propositions, but connects them he does. Onward.

Those who are working to dismantle government are among our country's biggest threats and enemies — those folks who have helped destroy the middle class by off shoring our industries, who are bankrupting our country with endless bottomless-budget warfare without clearly stated goals, who enable corporate consolidation towards monopoly of goods and services while touting illusory “lower prices and more choices,” who again and again argue for ‘deregulation' and blame the attendant destruction of the lives of hardworking Americans on the victim's “greed and selfishness” as they scoop more money into their private coffers.

Here we must agree, for the ‘dismantlers’ and fundamental transformers are indeed “among our country’s biggest threats and enemies”. But most of us with a keen interest in current events missed happenings like the destruction of our middle class by whatever means. Mr Lamphier has grossly misunderstood the mechanisms bankrupting our country. There is only one political faction in the land that perpetuates “bottomless budgets”, and the leftwing of that faction has been declaring for decades that free market capitalism provides the illusion of lower prices and more choices. Mr Lamphier then lets us know that a free and more deregulated economy is a zero sum game in which greedy capitalists pauper their customers in order to unconscionably enrich themselves. A beautiful turn of logic that takes us right into socialist class warfare.

What's to make of folks who fought, and those who ruled, to have U.S.-based global corporations legally ordained as ‘persons' with all the rights but none of the responsibility or accountability of citizenship?

The proper role of US corporations is ever at the whim and wisdom of our congressional electeds. That these have been dominated by the left for most post-war years speaks to some broad political wisdom that underpins their current state.

Regarding regulations: They don't come out of thin air. They are usually put into place because we, the people, discover harms that occur without legal recourse, so government acts to attempt a fix. Or because we have determined, as we learn new information in our complex ever and rapidly changing world, that certain policies will lead to harms, so government attempts to be proactive to mitigate those harms.

This appears to be clipped straight out of an over-simplified eighth grade civics text. Space does not permit analysis of Mr Lamphier's knowledge base, or perhaps more correctly, his low opinion of the intellectual kit of his expected readership.

Regulations come from legislators, who get a lot more information about issues than you and I do, and they are (ideally) aware that the issues are considerably complex, with competing interests that need to be balanced.

And we may here introduce the tight corollary that eggs come from the Easter Bunny.

Regulations come from you and me by way of the ballot box. Too often, voters are misdirected or there are unforeseen consequences, but, right or wrong, voting is a critical tool that gives regular folks a voice. Those who distort this process harm our democracy and discourage average citizens from being invested in our country's direction and outcomes.

America was not founded as a country where “regular folks” make regulations through the ballot box. We were not given a democracy, but rather something quite different called a republic wherein our elected representatives make regulations. Politicians like Mr Lamphier have successfully turned this Founders’ gift on its head through byzantine distortions that allowed the establishment of union dominated school systems which have (according to the Dept of Education) produced a voter population that can no longer understand the “direction and outcomes” for which, in the name of democracy, they are now asked to vote, …

I find it particularly reprehensible that there are those in the state Legislature who are intent on denying taxpayers the right to vote on our future — surely a corollary to the conservative value of “no taxation without representation” must be “don't take away my right to represent my position on taxation.”

… and therefore we see Mr Lamphier conclude that when the voter is denied the opportunity to vote directly on the tax code, we return to the pre-revolutionary state of ‘no taxation without representation’ – i.e. the legislators are not our representatives whenever (specifically in California) they summon up the courage to do their duty on levying taxes. Mr Lamphier is the direct ideological descendant of the populist initiative process that has made the state’s constitution into a laughable phone book, with its countless amendments that cement in what a cash compliant electorate happens to decide in their collective ignorance with a lot less information on complex issues than you and I can imagine.

Let's compare and contrast:

• Government ideally offers representation equally to the rich and the poor (we know this has been lost, but that was a founding principle) and provides good paying jobs and benefits enabling decent living standards and a secure retirement.

Mr Lamphier’s socialist underpinnings are again on display here in his ‘ideal’ view that it is government that “offers representation”. The whole nation used to understand that it was the people that determined by the “consent of the governed” the government’s “just” and enumerated powers among which was never the power for it to offer any kind of representation – the people with guns and blood won and kept that power for themselves. And the government being the acknowledged source of “good paying jobs and benefits …” puts Mr Lamphier squarely into the camp of far left collectivists who have managed to create the fiscal mess at all levels of government across the land through promoting the political power of public service employee unions. The avowed goal here has always been for the government to fulfill such “enabling of decent living standards and a secure retirement” by also eliminating the private sector, thereby truly becoming the ubiquitous provider of good paying jobs and benefits. Nothing less could be asked from any of Lenin’s lads. But wait, there’s more.

• The private sector says this is wrong, implying that people should work long and hard for low pay and have little to say about it — “take it or leave it” with no collective bargaining and no regulatory protection against abuse. This is the model they want for us?

The course of Mr Lamphier’s logic and understanding of the role of the private sector here becomes clear. The private sector, according to the man’s lights, is simply the enemy of the very same workers who are the customers and consumers of that sector’s goods and services. They are the very embodiment of modern day Simon Legrees, and as such they must be dealt with.

I suggest looking to our Declaration of Independence for the best argument of what our founders wanted for our country — badly enough to risk poverty or death for:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

So in the final analysis and with this quote from the Declaration of Independence, Mr Lamphier declares his revolutionary intentions against our current “Form of Government” the deficiencies of which he has explicated above. In that interpretation he joins the cadres of 1960s revolutionaries that now make up the ranks of this administration’s advisors, supporters, and intellectual fuel of the halo of socialist organizations that fiercely promote the promised “fundamental transformation” of this nation.

Nevada County Supervisor Terry Lamphier represents Grass Valley. His views do not represent county government staff, or those of his fellow board members. For which not enough of us give daily thanks, while keeping our eye firmly on 2012.

Comments

The fellow is anti-capitalist and in my view anti middle class. The middle class is the group of people who work hard and want to get ahead economically. The left, as shown here by TL, has robbed them of their ability to do better. The left has squandered the money we send them, they have dumbed down the children by committing educational mal-practice on a massive scale, and they have forced a two wage earner family by their tax codes. The left has simply destroyed the middle class and yet people like TL are so ignorant of what they have done, or perhaps they just can't except blame because of their hubris, that America and American exceptionalism has been destroyed for the sake of getting even with the so called "rich". GOD help us.

So Todd are you ready to except the blame and personal responsibility for your actions, for your failed real estate develoment projects, yo uknow the ones where the taxpayers and banks had to cover the bad loans?

Enos stop trying to change the subject, and Todd stop taking the bait. Lets examine the issues in George's analysis of our socialist Supervisor ideas and concepts. He clearly does not understand how our economy works and how jobs are created. Let's hear from Lamphier's fellow Supervisors. Where do they stand on economic development, capitalism and job creation in Nevada County. No state has ever regulated themselves into prosperity.

Terry Lamphier's diatribe was embarrassing (people of district 3- are you serious?). MAYBE I could understand such 'illogical wondering' if you were put on the spot but he supposedly took time to formulate his thoughts, brainstorm, edit... and this was the finished product?

cliff notes: Government is the solution, our founding fathers were really socialists, employees/owners of corporations are Satan, more regulations and higher taxes = keys to middle class paradise...

Terry Lamphier, Nevada County Supervisor for District 3, will hold a town hall meeting to present information on the County budget, its impact on County services, and other issues affecting Nevada County. He welcomes the opportunity to meet constituents, answer questions and listen to concerns. The meeting will be held at 6:30PM on Monday, April 18 at the Grass Valley Veterans Memorial Building, 255 South Auburn Street, Grass Valley.

Correct on all counts Mikey, kinda scary, of course this is also a guy championed by the aforsaid mentioned Mr Enos that also does not have clue where he stands on AB32/Prop 23 either. Did Mr Enos also know of his socialist leanings ( pretty hard to describe that as anything else)when he supported him and then tried to publically humiliate Mr Spencer for losing to a........( pick it)

Also not sure I will throw Paul under the bus for his short comment, but a more thoughtful reponse is awaited as that wasn't on topic.

And enough dodging with the change of subject crap - got an opinion fine or go waste somebody else's time.

My comment wasn't directed at the critique of Lamphiers statement, that's fair game as it should be especially since he's an elected official. I was referring to the Juvinall-Enos dribble which we've all heard before and frankly I'm kind of sick of and has nothing to do with the topic. As to his article I need to read it carefully before I have a detailed opinion. Offhand, I'm not sure what it has to do with Nevada County directly but it certainly shows insight into his general political philosophy which many of the participants of this blog would oppose.

Hey Russ, I wasn't trying to change the subject. I responded directly to an issue Todd raside in his post. It was Todd that tried to change the subject. you can read the posts above to see the facts.

Todd posted... "perhaps they just can't except blame". I directly responded to an Todd raised and posted:

So Todd are you ready to except the blame and personal responsibility for your actions, for your failed real estate develoment projects, you know the ones where the taxpayers and banks had to cover the bad loans?

Good call Chuck but we're used to it, Steve did you know of his socailist leaning when you backed him? you don't know squat apparently about his AGW stance so just wondered what else you didn't know or did - maybe 2 peas in a pod ??? Paul to his credit did admit it, maybe its time for you to come out of the closet as a socialist.

again quit changing the subject and wasteing everyones time, do you really understand what - Stay on topic means??

Are you also a Socialist or not - this is a Yes or No answer and Todd has nothing to do with the question or Russ or Karl and Groucho Marx

Dixon, I had not thought of his position about political persuasion (Enos) until you made your excellent comment. We all supported John Spencer because he was a nice fellow, a good Supervisor and a CAPITALIST! Since TL has now written about his socialist beliefs, actually on the verge of uber, I would say Enos and the rest of TL's supporters must be the same philosophy.

"Regulations come from legislators, who get a lot more information about issues than you and I do, and they are (ideally) aware that the issues are considerably complex, with competing interests that need to be balanced."

I never admitted anything about Lamphiers political leanings. I only acknowledged that many readers of RR would not be of the same persuasion. That was not exactly a revelation. If you were to put a litmus test for socialism according to the common definition accepted by this blog Nixon would certainly be one as well as Eisenhower and, yes, Reagan as well as both Bush's and McCain let alone all Democratic Presidents, so It's no big deal to be branded as such .

Paul I agree you had just commented on the bickering and had not stated any points as of yet. None of my posts related to you because of that, we may not agree always but you make your points on topic - then stray in the third one LOL

Having heard our newest supervisor speak, his depth of knowledge on the subject of the government and the governed is extremely limited. He tries, oh how he tries, to sound intellectual but just using words doesn't make one smart. In fact, they expose the fools for what they are. He wants everyone to be equal, to share equally, to have those who have more to give to those who have less. That foolishness went out a generation ago. Lamphier doesn't have a clue how over-regulation is killing our county. He doesn't understand that those that we elect do not create the regulations. It's the unelected bureaucrats that make the rules. Check it out for yourself Mr. Supervisor, check it out. Yes, we voters made a mistake. Never again!

Yes, some Republicans have slipped into the progressive agenda, but to label Reagan and Eisenhower as socialists is a cynical diversion of the discussion here. Most certainly Barack Obama is a dyed-in-the-wool socialist as acknowledged by prominent world leaders, his policies, major news magazines, political analysts of all stripes (some want him to be more socialist), and the cadres of advisors with which he has surrounded himself.

To a socialist, being called a socialist should be an honorable appellation - not a dirty word. That it isn't in a majority of cases, is an important topic in its own right. To me socialism is a pathology whose eventual virulence leads to mass deaths and decades of widespread suffering - in short, a dirty word.

Let's start with Nixon. I can only take one at a time. In his State of the Union message to Congress in 1972, President Nixon had outlined several goals, including welfare reform with a guaranteed annual income for every family with children. That's just a start for now. Pretty socialistic don't you think?

I think I follow Paul's logic. Every president since Woodrow Wilson (and even more so after FDR) has some socialist tendencies simply by not having the abolishment of the Federal Reserve, Social Security and Medicare as the top 3 on his agenda. To consider America a "free market capitalist" society post 1913 is a stretch. Every president since Wilson/FDR who did not fight the entitlement programs (and the FED) is guilty of fueling our nations dependency on government; socialism.

I tried to keep it as simple as I could but perhaps I wasn't clear. I have key word searched that State of the Union and am unable to find anything where I could remotely derive what Paul contends Nixon tried to convey. Now I don't pretend to understand the liberal mind but it usually is an entertaining exercise to have them display their logic when the opportunity presents itself. I was just hoping this might be one of those opportunities. I will await my education and be appreciative of it when it arrives.

Nixon must have been a commie! Check out what Nixion said... he even talked about the "feelings of others":

"full employment"
"improving the quality of life for every American"
"ensure that no one will be denied needed health care because of inability to pay"
"protect workers' pension rights"
"promote equal opportunity for members of minorities, and others who have been left behind"
"expand consumer protection"
"support for those who cannot help themselves"
"fairness to the working poor"
"a better quality of life for all Americans"
"broader support for the arts, helping stimulate a deeper appreciation of what they can contribute to the Nation's activities and to our individual lives."
"live respectfully together as a unified society"
"generous regard for the rights of others and also for the feelings of others"

Here's some more of Nixon's 1972 State of the Union:

"We also will help meet our goal of full employment in peacetime with a set of major initiatives to stimulate more imaginative use of America's great capacity for technological advance, and to direct it toward improving the quality of life for every American."

"They include, among others, our programs to improve life for the aging; to combat crime and drug abuse; to improve health services and to ensure that no one will be denied needed health care because of inability to pay; to protect workers' pension rights; to promote equal opportunity for members of minorities, and others who have been left behind; to expand consumer protection; to improve the environment"

"reform of our wasteful and outmoded welfare system--substitution of a new system that provides work requirements and work incentives for those who can help themselves, income support for those who cannot help themselves, and fairness to the working poor"

"what our quest is, is not merely for more, but for better for a better quality of life for all Americans"

"we are giving a new measure of attention to cleaning up our air and water, making our surroundings more attractive."

"We are providing broader support for the arts, helping stimulate a deeper appreciation of what they can contribute to the Nation's activities and to our individual lives."

"But nothing really matters more to the quality of our lives than the way we treat one another, than our capacity to live respectfully together as a unified society, with a full, generous regard for the rights of others and also for the feelings of others."

Here's from the encyclopedia Britannia on Nixons graranteed annual income proposal

"Despite expectations from some observers that Nixon would be a “do-nothing” president, his administration undertook a number of important reforms in welfare policy, civil rights, law enforcement, the environment, and other areas. Nixon’s proposed Family Assistance Program (FAP), intended to replace the service-oriented Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), would have provided working and nonworking poor families with a guaranteed annual income—though Nixon preferred to call it a “negative income tax.” Although the measure was defeated in the Senate, its failure helped to generate support for incremental legislation incorporating similar ideas—such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI), ... "

Also Eisenhower presided over the largest expansion of Social Security in our history overriding conservative objections.

"Dwight Eisenhower was the principal force behind the greatest single expansion of Social Security beneficiaries in the history of the program. He led the legislative drive to add over ten million Americans to the system. Here’s how it developed."

At this point let's compare the above examples with our hosts description of the path to socialism as described in his essay

"Socialism is a form of governance that seeks as its endgame the state ownership of the means of production and distribution which it executes through a centralized process of planning and control. Socialism teaches that it can be achieved through a bit by piece transformation of capitalism, there need be no sudden overturn of the existing system or “basic character of the state”. And in the end we will have a salubrious and classless environment that distributes goods and services to individuals on some yet to-be-defined basis of people’s deeds – i.e. “the quantity and quality of work done.”

So I have a hard time distinguishing Obama from previous Republicans and Democrats who have been down this path and offered little resistance to what seems to be the consensus direction of American social order of the past 75 years. You may speak as you will about the evils of Socialism but don't try to make it a Republican-Democrat borderline. That I will challenge.

Before this silly season on socialism gets going too far, let's just nip it in the bud with another operational definition. Socialists are those who avowed socialists say they are - i.e. the people who are invited and admitted into their ranks by those already self-ensconsed. No socialist of the 1950s would ever have admitted Eisenhower into their ranks and celebrated his policies. To socialists, Eisenhower was a rank capitalist. And the same can be argued for Nixon assessed by the socialists of the 1960s. And the same can be argued for Reagan, etc.

We can offer the same operational definitions for free market capitalist.

To argue that anyone who promotes a harmonious society is prima facie a socialist is not worthy of serious consideration. Socialists have neither proprietary rights to such a notion, nor have they an historical record of achieving such harmony. Europe is the latest window to the world of socialism. Keep your eye on how that's working out when you run out of other people's money.

My previous statement on the progressive tendencies of the several Republican presidents stands.

The attempt here to imply that socialist and socialism is not a relevant and sufficiently crisp discriminant in the space of political ideologies is just rank foolishness when viewed through the lens of political history. And such rank foolishness was not practiced by the decades long participation of socialists in socialist political parties, and communists in communist parties. They knew who they were, and were proud of their stand.

Today liberals are in terminal denial of their obvious collectivist tendencies and resort to the creation of such semantic fogs in the hopes that their social goals can be camouflaged as called for in their published operating manuals.

This is in stark contrast to free market capitalists who are never ashamed to advance their aims under the clearly visible banners of their social ideology based on individual liberty and responsibility. They don't have to play word games.

So now George wants to reset the defination and change the standards as he seems fit as a way to address the issues raised?

Nixon called for Americans to... live "together as a unified society"... "ensure that no one will be denied needed health care because of inability to pay".. to "protect workers' pension rights"... to "promote equal opportunity for members of minorities, and others who have been left behind".. and "generous regard for... the feelings of others".

If Obama spoke these exact words how would the right react? They would and do scream that Obama is a socialist and he must be stopped! We must take our County back and protect it from this socialist conversion of our Country!

Yep... try to redefine the defination to support your position and dodge what Nixon said... it's simple, if the right would apply the same standards applied to Obama to Nixon it's clear... Nixon was a socialist.

When the left loses they move the goal posts. Since the socialists are becoming more irrelevant to the American people, they then go out and look for someone we love or emulate and try to change the history of the person and the definitions. The one I thought was the most creative was the Abe Lincoln redo of the progressives. He didn't care about slavery, he just wanted to keep the Union together so he was really a racist. That was where they lost all credibility to many people.

George I have to say you are the one playing word games. So Republicans who propose what you claim to be Socialistic policies are not Socialists but Democrats such as Obama are. This is because the Republicans are not " admitted into their ranks by those already self-ensconsed" Is there some kind of secret ritual to be included in the group . Perhaps a hand shake or a code word.

Earlier you wrote "First, we dispense with the nonsense that someone has to have ALL the consensus attributes of a socialist or whatever to be called such."

Now you are adding another layer of qualifications to your definition of Who is a Socialist, that you have to be part of the group you described. It's you're party but I'm a bit surprised by this rather sloppy attempt to end the conversation by reinforcing your previous statements to meet the occasion.

Nothing of the sort Paul. I do not claim that Nixon was NOT a socialist, but avowed socialists did make such claims and assigned him to the far right. There is no change of definitions other than attempting to shine a light on the same notion from a different angle in order to advance the conversation. No other "layers" have been added.

Assuming that we accept the socialists' own definition of socialism that I have cited, it would be useful for some of you from the left to offer your own definition of a socialist (or show how to sidestep the query).

George. As you know I am a firm believer in national health care similar to the Denmark system that is paid for by high tax rates. . As far as I know i haven't been invited into any Socialists fraternal order or groups . I also believe in a rather extensive number of taxpayer subsidized programs such as AMTRACK, Public Media, Public Education etc. For the purposes of this conversation I define myself as a Progressive with Libertarian tantrums. Am a socialist by your definition? Are my tendencies a "pathology whose eventual virulence leads to mass deaths and decades of widespread suffering - in short, a dirty word."

Lamphier also exposes his ignorance of our system. Regulations do not come from legislators: they come from bureaucrats. The legislators authorize and give broad powers to the various bureaucracies to create regulations.

Steve says that Nixon was a SOCIALIST?! HAHAHA. I was just going to ask George to bounce Enos, but you should leave him out there as an example of how utterly silly liberals are! LOL. "My pet monkey has wings" Nice. Enos and Dixon made my day!

Getting back to TL's opinion piece... Has anyone noticed a difference in service due to CA's state employee furlough days? I have not.

Meditate on the fact that our state's employees have been working 20% less without any material change in service. I think the same would be true of the Federal government if the no budget is passed and it was shut down for a bit.

Barry... Nixon called for Americans to... live "together as a unified society"... "ensure that no one will be denied needed health care because of inability to pay".. to "protect workers' pension rights"... to "promote equal opportunity for members of minorities, and others who have been left behind".. and "generous regard for... the feelings of others".

If Obama spoke these exact words how would the right react?

They would and do scream that Obama is a socialist and he must be stopped! We must take our County back and protect it from this socialist conversion of our Country!

Mikey, your point is excellent. And I would like to elevate it further with the notion that, perhaps, the 20% furlough has saved some greater damage to what remains of California's economy.

I would expect much more benefit from such cuts at the federal level where my druthers would be to eliminate at least 20% of the departments, agencies, bureaus, commissions, ... . The administration instead will seek to punish Americans at every turn by making the cuts at the point of the spear, instead from its long and fat shaft. That will show the sheeple what it feels like to mess with the ruling class.

"During the Nixon presidency, the concept of "equal rights" was broadened from desegregation to include school busing, affirmative action in hiring, women, the elderly, the physically disabled, and an expanding and overlapping list of other groups. Nixon’s files on civil rights policy issues reveal the genesis of many legislative and regulatory initiatives still in effect today."

Ah yes! Now the whole NIxon thing is clear to me. He was actually masquerading as a capitalistic Republican when all along he was a socialist liberal Manchurian candidate. That explains the whole thing, even Watergate! Ok I concede. You liberals can claim him as yours for now on.

Socialist Liberal Manchurian Candidate. I like that
You can have Reagan for now. I'm running out of wind. I'd like to remind you though that it was under Reagan that we began taxing Social Security when he bailed out the program in 1983.

It was based on Milton Friedman's negative income tax proposal, which isn't a statement of any welfare system to be constitutional, but rather, if you were going to have a welfare system, it should reward work. Friedman noted that welfare as we know it tends to punish those who accept work; to start working generally means taking a big risk, and all of the welfare support can be withdrawn, leaving the person with less money after taking the job. It also tends to split up families, or prevent the formation of the family to begin with.

With a negative income tax scheme, any work is rewarded; only some of the support is removed for each dollar earned. Nixon proposed it as a replacement for welfare but by the time Congress was through we were left with a negative income tax and the welfare bureaucracy on top of it and the legislation died a graceless death.

Thanks for expanding the information Greg. It was a bold idea indeed. Nixon was a true enigma and could have been one of our greatest Presidents except for his fatal character flaws. Much like Bill Clinton.

Thank goodness also that Mr. Lamphier's views are do not represent "those of his fellow board members." Two more liberals on the BOS and this is the kind of non-sense that will happen. So much for balanced budgets.

You go to govern not with the congress you want, but the congress you get. Nixon (don't blame me, I voted for the other guy) was President with Democratic Speakers of the House and a Democratic Senate Majority Leader; he'd certainly have proposed different solutions and signed different legislation into law had he a Congress more to his liking.

He was President, not King (not that he wouldn't have preferred the latter). What happens during a Presidency is the sum total of the work of all the players, not by the direction of an Emperor. As far as legislation and especially taxing and spending, the most powerful person in Washington DC is the Speaker of the House. Gingrich should have gotten the credit for balancing the budget, not Clinton, and Speaker Pelosi was minding the store during the end of Bush II's second term and the first two years of Obama, and she deserves the 'credit' for those years.

But it was Clinton who maintained the cash flow and applied the surplus to paying down the deficit and maintaining a healthy reserve.. When Bush came in he ran on on the platform to return money to the people and not paying down on the debt. That's the difference.